What’s woke this week?

Share This

The wokerati are always against something. It’s their raison d’être after all. From the pointy-fingered moral high ground of their keyboards and the left wing press, they pass judgement on everything from Christian morality to classic song lyrics, biology to incidental blackface, and meat to material reality. Last week it was bananas and this week it’s shoes, of all things, that have incurred their wrath. Even birth itself has come in for some wacky woke derision. And, as always, what would the week be without some trans activism. This looks like it will remain the woke cause célèbre until, in their fighting for the supremacy of every manner of delusion (my preferred pronoun trumps your preferred pronoun) in their social justice war, they eat themselves. I’m not sure how that will fit with their clean eating veganism, though.

Shoe booboo

Katy Perry would normally be considered a high priestess of wokeworld, but the pressures of maintaining woke purity of thought and action in all things was even too much for her last week. She was called out screechingly, of course, on social media for a new range of shoes launched by her fashion label. Her crime was not the obvious affront to taste and fashion that the ugly stylized face on the shoes presented, but rather that the black version of the loafers and sandals, with its bulbous lips and large eyes, was just another example of ‘racist blackface’. The shoes were withdrawn from sale, but it’s unclear if the gold and beige versions of the shoes are still available. They apparently didn’t offend wokeworld.

This controversy came hot on the heels of the previous week’s blackface balaclava faux pas from Gucci. You will be pleased to know that Gucci, like all woke corporations, has learned from the experience and this week announced it is now appointing a global director of diversity and inclusion, has instituted a multicultural design scholarship program and introduced a global learning program to “educate all of the company’s 18,000 international employees ‘to increase awareness of unconscious cultural bias’. All because of an ugly black jumper somewhat reminiscent of Hannibal Lecter.

Funny how those newly-woke corporations never mention their bottom line in their post-Twitter outrage mea culpas. The fact that they miss out on $890 for each of the fashion abominations they can no longer sell clearly has nothing to do with their repentance.

Antinatalism: Don’t Procreate-alism

For a change of scenery, last week wokeworld ventured far from its usual first world playground and ventured to India where a Mumbai businessman is suing his parents for giving birth to him. I kid you not. Raphael Samuel is an adherent of antinatilist philosophy, a branch of ‘suffering-focussed ethics’. Its most noted proponent, South African academic David Benetar, posits that coming into existence is a serious harm, and therefore it is always morally wrong to create human beings. Some extend their reasoning to ‘non-human animals’, as well. Not surprisingly, most of them are vegans.

Mr Samuel, whose lawyer parents are apparently amused at his action, told the BBC “There’s no point to humanity. So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also, no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”

It’s certainly tempting to apply the ‘existence is pointless’ view to residents of wokeworld but in yet more proof that their dominion is an irony-free zone, Mr Samuels further stated, “Mum said she wished she had met me before I was born and that if she did, she definitely wouldn’t have had me.” I rest my case.

Transplaining Trans-plants

A British surgeon has called for ‘transgender women’ to have access to womb transplants. This follows the world-first successful delivery of a baby from a woman who received a womb transplant. Christopher Inglefield, founder of the London Transgender Clinic and a specialist in ‘gender confirmation surgery’ said that the surgery would be essentially identical to the one performed on women and that it would be illegal to deny access to the treatment to a ‘trans female’ who had completed transition.

Apparently, as the law currently stands in Britain access to IVF treatment for those who had the transplant could not be prevented. And, presumably, the National Health Service will pay for it all, while decreasing funding for end-of-life hospices is forcing them to close their doors.